Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
FBI has NOT executed its Woods Procedures in compliance with FBI policy
#1
Let’s not forget about the FBI.

Just released on twitter by Catherine Herridge @CBS_Herridge

#FISA BREAKING: IG Horowitz on FBI FISA applications and supporting docs, so-called Woods File “As a result of our audit work to date...we do not have confidence that the FBI has executed its Woods Procedures in compliance with FBI policy.” 

https://t.co/2G2dNUU2Zd?ssr=true
Reply

#2
Thanks for posting the link to the report.
Reply

#3
Reply

#4
Reply

#5
hahaha They either lost the evidence OR never had it.  

twitter.com/cbs_herridge/status/1245038527697559552?s=21
Reply

#6
From Catherine Herridge twitter:

#FISA DOJ statement “No one was more appalled than the Attorney General at the way the FISA process was abused. This abuse resulted in one of the greatest political travesties in American history” @KerriKupecDOJ @CBSNews
Reply

#7
Quote: @A1Janitor said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/us/politics/fbi-fisa-wiretap-trump.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20200331&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=cta®i_id=60586302&segment_id=23405&user_id=94f723bc61cebc7575a640f246611381
Further nails in the "case closed" coffin.  

Pull quote, from the NYT link:

"The finding of systemic incompetence is devastating for the F.B.I. But in the Trump era, the discovery is leavened by an unusual side benefit for the bureau: It undercuts the narrative fostered by President Trump and his supporters that the botching of applications to surveil his campaign adviser Carter Page is evidence that the F.B.I. engaged in a politically biased conspiracy."

Because...of course.... there couldn't possibly be both (the now admitted) incompetence plus a coup/conspiracy.  
One or the other, but not both.  Could not possibly be both.  Otherwise, we missed the political story of the century.  

Not possible.  So impossible, we'll now  entertain the notion Comey was incompetent, but we'll never admit to a coup. 

LMAO.  

NYT:   We're still clinging to the Papadopolous link, for now.  









Reply

#8
The problem of course ... they spied on Carter Page because he had connections to Russia - knowing full well he was a CIA asset working in Russia.

And changing an email to pretend he was not working for the CIA. 

I want to know how Page was inserted into the campaign. 
Reply

#9
In Robert Mueller’s final report on the Russia investigation, a little-known translator named Anatoli Samochornov played a bit role, a witness sparsely quoted about the infamous Trump Tower meeting he attended in summer 2016 between Donald Trump Jr. and a mysterious Russian lawyer.
The most scintillating information Mueller’s team ascribed to Samochornov in the report was a tidbit suggesting a hint of impropriety: The translator admitted he was offered $90,000 by the Russians to pay his legal bills, if he supported the story of Moscow attorney Natalia Veselnitskya. He declined.
But recently released FBI memos show that Samochornov, a translator trusted by the State Department and other federal agencies, provided agents far more information than was quoted by Mueller, nearly all of it exculpatory to the president’s campaign and his eldest son.
Despite learning the translator's information on July 12, 2017, just a few days after the media reported on the Trump Tower meeting, the FBI would eventually suggest Donald Trump Jr. was lying and that the event could be seminal to Russian election collusion.
Samochornov’s eyewitness account entirely debunks the media’s narrative, the FBI memos show.
“Samochornov was not particularly fond of Donald Trump Jr., but stated Donald Trump Jr.’s account with Veselnitskya as portrayed in recent media report, was accurate,” according to the FBI 302 report on its interview of the translator. “Samachornov concurred with Donald Trump Jr.’s accounts of the meeting. He added ‘they’ were telling the truth.”
So what was that truth, and how did it compare to the media version of events that took root in summer 2017?
The media narrative at the time was that the meeting might be a key piece of evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia: Trump Jr., brother-in-law Jared Kushner, and then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort were all lured to a meeting by the Russian lawyer Veselnitskya supposedly to talk about Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Trump Jr.’s account, ridiculed by the media and Democrats at the time, was that the short meeting ended up being about a Russian lobbying campaign to change adoption practices under a U.S. human rights law that punished Moscow and other foreign bad actors known as the Magnitsky Act.
A great read:
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/muellers-hidden-evidence-translator-exonerated-don-jr

Reply

#10
Quote: @savannahskol said:
Further nails in the "case closed" coffin.  

Pull quote, from the NYT link:

"The finding of systemic incompetence is devastating for the F.B.I. But in the Trump era, the discovery is leavened by an unusual side benefit for the bureau: It undercuts the narrative fostered by President Trump and his supporters that the botching of applications to surveil his campaign adviser Carter Page is evidence that the F.B.I. engaged in a politically biased conspiracy."

Because...of course.... there couldn't possibly be both (the now admitted) incompetence plus a coup/conspiracy.  
One or the other, but not both.  Could not possibly be both.  Otherwise, we missed the political story of the century.  

Not possible.  So impossible, we'll now  entertain the notion Comey was incompetent, but we'll never admit to a coup. 

LMAO.  

NYT:   We're still clinging to the Papadopolous link, for now.  


I don’t think it makes any logical sense for people to make
the argument that because the FBI was systematically bad at verifying people
were legally allowed to be investigated, that it means that Trump wasn’t targeted.


Not following the requirements for verifying if people can
be spied on is what fundamentally allows illegal spying to happen.


I also disagree with the articles choice in calling it “sloppiness”.  You could also call it “intentionally not
documenting their own corruption”. 
Calling it sloppiness is an assumption, an assumption that they shouldn’t
be making at this time.  It pushes the narrative
in a certain direction.

Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
3 Guest(s)

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 Melroy van den Berg.